125 years of bible version debate: why?

8/15/2019 125 Years of Bible Version Debate: Why?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/125-years-of-bible-version-debate-why 1/71

125125 YearsYears

Of Bible Version DebateOf Bible Version Debate

Why?Why?



2



125125 YearsYearsOf Bible Version DebateOf Bible Version Debate

Why?Why?

Jocelyn Andersen

OO NE NE

WWAYAY

CCAFÉAFÉ

PPRESSRESS

USA

3



125 Years Of Bible Version Debate: Why? By Jocelyn Andersen

Copyright © 2006 by Jocelyn Andersen (all rights reserved)

Published in 2006 by One Way Café Press. One Way Café Press provides timely and relevant resources for Christian growth andvictorious Christian living. Your comments and suggestions arevalued. You may contact us through our websitewww.OneWayCafePress.com

All rights reserved. Permission is given to reproduce the contents of this book, in any medium for any non-profit use. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, photocopy,recording or otherwise for any commercial use without the written permission of the publisher, except for brief quotations in writtenreviews.

Cover Design: J. Andersen

Book Design: J. Andersen

All Biblical references are KJV

Unedited Review Copy

Copies of this book can be obtained online atwww.HungryHeartsMinistries.com

Or Write:Jocelyn Andersen

P.O. Box 1954Auburndale, FL 33823

4

http://www.onewaycafepress.com/

http://www.hungryheartsministries.com/

http://www.onewaycafepress.com/

http://www.hungryheartsministries.com/



5



Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Make An Informed Decision……………9High StakesFacts Or Marketing Hype?Is There A Standard?

Chapter 2 - King James Only?………………………17This Is Not A “King James Only” DefenseDo All Bible Versions Say the Same Thing?

Choosing A Bible……………………………………21200+ ChoicesTwo Families Of TextsWhat Is the Majority Text?What Are the Minority Texts?

Who Can We Trust?…………………………………25The Unreliability of the Received TextDisqualifying Erasmus: What the Experts SayModern Scholarship

Erasmus, Johnny Come Lately and a Careless Liar?..31Is Early Always Better Than Late?Was Erasmus’ Text Really Prepared Carelessly and In Haste?Riddled With Errors

Trinitarian Pressures?……………………………….35Does 1 John 5:7 Even Belong In The Bible?

Apostolic Origins Of the Received Text……………39Quotes From Early SourcesWhen Did The Church Fathers Live?

Why the Need For Another Version?……………….45The Best Keeps Getting Bester How It All Began1881: The Year We Finally Got the Real Word of God

The Minority Texts and the Hort-Westcott Theory…53What Is the Hort-Westcott Theory?

The History of the CodicesThe Quality of the Codices

6



7



8



11Make An Informed Decision

Neutrality concerning the issue of Bible versions is not aviable option. But very few modern Christians have anyreal understanding about what is at the root of the Bibleversion debate. That is one of the purposes of this book,to bring back into perspective what the debate wasreally all about to begin with, and to show that, withliterally hundreds of conflicting Bible versions to choose

from, it is still a relevant issue for Christians today.

In the late 1800’s, when the debate first began, it was notabout individual Bible versions. Because when thecontroversy was new, that was not an issue yet, nor indeed, has it ever been the real issue.

The reader may be surprised to find there is very little

comparison done in this book between the various Bibleversions themselves. That is because the translations

9



themselves are only by-products of what the issue reallyis.

One version may unarguably translate a certain verse or passage more clearly than another version. The KingJames Bible does indeed contain some archaic wordsthat make it somewhat difficult to understand in places.So, that being the case, does it really matter which Bibleversion we read?

To answer that, here are a few questions to consider. Does it matter which doctor we choose…? Does it

matter what kind of food we eat…? Does it matter who

we leave our kids with…?

Everything we know about the God of Heaven andeternal life through his risen son, Jesus Christ—we get from the Bible.

The answers to questions about the most importantchoices of our lives are found there. Choices betweenlife and death (both temporal and eternal) are foundthere. Choices between sickness and health are foundthere. Choices between peace and chaos, poverty and prosperity are found there. Counsel on how to makechoices that will positively (or negatively) affectvirtually every area of our lives and the lives of our loved ones is found in the Bible! As believers, our faith is found only in the Word of God.We would know absolutely nothing about Jesus if itwere not for the written Word of God—the Bible. Weknow that faith in Jesus is the most important thing in

our lives because the Bible tells us so!

10



High StakesWith the stakes being so high, and with literally

hundreds of conflicting Bible versions to choose from,we should be very cautious about casually listening toanyone about which version is best without thoroughlyresearching the subject for ourselves.

About The ExpertsCould it be that most of us prefer to leave the hard stuff to the experts?

We would do well to remember that Bible scholars, the“experts,” are not demigods nor do they possessextraordinary intelligence above and beyond the rest of us. They are merely humans who happen to have gainedan education in order to be classified as experts in

certain areas of study such as languages, historicalinformation, etc.

Anyone, Bible scholar or not, can make an informeddecision regarding Bible versions with just a smallamount of research and, most importantly, a clear understanding of what the issues really are.

Bible scholars may be experts in some areas of study, but they are by no means unbiased. They are subject tothe same biases, prejudices and fallibilities the rest of usare subject to. Bible scholars also have the same varyingdegrees of common sense and discernment, or lack thereof, the rest of us have. I recently had a discussion with a seminary graduate

who could not get past the fact that he could read Greek and I could not. I admitted I had to look up theindividual Greek or Hebrew words in my Strong’s

11



Exhaustive Concordance of Biblical Words. And because I admitted that fact, he made no secret of the

fact that he felt far superior to me in his ability tounderstand the Bible, as well as the issues surroundingthe Bible version controversy, simply because he couldread Greek.

Here is some food for thought along those lines. I was born an English speaking person. It is my nativelanguage. I have an excellent understanding of English,

and I read it very well.

But because of that, can I claim to know the meaning,shades of meaning and nuances of every word in theEnglish language without at least an occasional peek into an English dictionary? Can any English speaking person claim to have such knowledge?

No! They cannot, and neither can seminary graduateswho have learned to read the biblical languages claim tohave perfect understanding of them without ongoingreferences to Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. I daresayany reputable Bible scholar has more than one Bibledictionary or lexicon on their personal library shelvesand reference them on a regular basis—just as I do…and just as you should.

We should show any godly Bible scholar the respect heor she is due for the years of effort and study they haveinvested in. And if they are truly godly people, walkingin Christ-like humility, they will not allow any of us toascribe to them any more intelligence and ability to

understand the Bible than the average person possesses.

However, The truly Godly Bible Scholar will, in allhumility, be happy to share with the average person

12



whatever knowledge they have obtained during thecourse of their above-average pursuit of educational

accomplishments. The godly Bible scholar is very aware, and unashamedto admit, that the resources today are simply toonumerous, and too readily available, to give anyone

(who can read) the excuse of ignorance when it comes tomaking decisions concerning the various Bible versions.

This writer has had far too average an education to beconsidered an expert in anything. So this book is writtenfrom one average person to other average persons andstrives to present the basic issues behind the Bibleversion controversy, in the simplest, most unscholarlymanner possible. So that armed with some basic facts(and a smattering of common sense), the average personcan make an informed decision concerning which Bibleversions are trustworthy and which are not.

Facts Or Marketing Hype?At the time of this writing, our daughter-in-law isexpecting a baby. She has a car seat to purchase. She has been researching car seats—extensively—to makecertain she purchases the absolute safest one for her

child.What a wonderful responsible parent she is alreadyturning out to be! But aren’t choices pertaining to eternal life even moreimportant than choices concerning our physical safety?So why isn’t every person, who claims to belong to

Jesus Christ, taking the Word of God as seriously as our daughter-in-law is taking the purchase of a car seat ?

13



Is There A Standard?

All Bible versions are not created equal—they do not allsay the same thing. So what is the standard for choosinga Bible version we can trust?

When we buy a ruler or a measuring tape, we trust thateach foot contains 12 inches, and each yard contains 3feet. We also trust that each inch measures exactly whatit says it does… one inch.

Why are we so trusting of that fact? One reason, probably the only reason, is because there is a standard

for such things.

What kinds of houses and structures would be built if there were no such standards? Every part of theconstruction of a sound structure (from the architectural planning to completion) is completely dependent on thetrustworthiness of the standards of measure that areused. Without such standards, sound construction wouldnot be possible. On the other hand, let’s take a look at an industry thathas no standard whatsoever. There is absolutely no

consistent standard of measure in the women’s clothingindustry. Each size in women’s clothing sizes can varyup to five to six sizes depending on the designer. Theonly logical conclusion we can come to on thisdiscrepancy is, that different clothing designers haveattached sizes to their clothing that will attract andcompliment the consumer .

In the days of “I love Lucy,” a size 12 was considered perfect. I understand Marilyn Monroe, who was thestandard for beauty in her day, was a size 14. But these

14



days, it is very complimentary to a woman who hasnever been able to wear anything smaller than a size

twelve to find that a size four or five fits her. Today, “thin” is worshipped to, sometimes fatal,extremes. Today, a size zero is probably the mostcomplimentary size of all. And we have found sizezero’s in some lines of clothing that were actually equalto sizes five or six in other lines!

Acceptability by the consumer seems to be the prevailing criteria used by clothing designers in settingtheir sizing scale. Size has become relative—dependingon who designs and markets the clothing—and on howwell the sizes sell.

Book Publishers and Bible translators understand theseconcepts as well as clothing designers do. And withmillions of dollars invested in single advertisingcampaigns, to far too many of them, truth is relative— depending on their slant and target market.

So how dangerous is it to get our information from amarketing department concerning the reliability of any product? Our daughter-in-law certainly isn’t dependingon information that comes from that source in her car seat research. She is looking for facts—not marketinghype. The facts on Bible versions are available as well, but if you choose to go to the official website of any particular Bible version—if it is a website where financial profit isinvolved, rest assured you will be getting marketing

hype— not impartial facts.

15



But don’t despair. Researching the Bible version issue isnot as tedious and confusing as it looks to the

uninitiated. It only becomes a confusing mess when thereal issue is not clearly understood. The facts presentedin this work are well researched, but the reader is urgedto check them out personally.

Truth has nothing to fear from research. Truth is never confusing or harmful. Truth is only confusing if wereject it—and cannot make it fit with what we may have

already accepted as fact.

Is it outside the realm of possibility, beyond the pale soto speak, that we could be misled by very sincere, very beloved and trusted, pastors or teachers?

Perhaps years have been invested at seminary or BibleCollege and your choice of Bible versions is based oncounsel or training received there. Are Bible Collegesand Seminaries exempt from bias and error? The reader may not agree with everything in this book, but if the truth is being presented, wouldn’t acceptingthe truth be better than holding on to fondly held, thoughmisplaced and erroneous beliefs?

16



22King James Only?

This Book Is Not A “King James Only”Defense, although the writer does believe the KingJames is an inspired version, no translation can beconsidered sacred—only the scriptures themselves aresacred, therefore, where ever the scriptures are found,whether inscribed on a rock or placed in a magazine add,

the Words of God themselves are sacred and life-giving.

This book is, however, a defense of the source material —the texts from which the New Testament of the KingJames Bible was translated. The New Testament portionof the King James Bible was translated from theMajority Text (also known as the Textus Receptus or theReceived text). It is this Greek text that is the butt of

much ridicule, controversy, persecution and libel.

17



It is the unreliability of the Alexandrian, Minority Texts,the source material from which the New Testaments of

most modern English Versions are derived, that is beingchallenged. This book will examine both textual sources, andchallenge the reader to acknowledge the need of makinga choice between the two.

Do All Bible Versions Say The Same Thing?The following is an excerpt from a letter written to alocal pastor after he stated to his congregation, in our presence, that he had thoroughly researched the Bibleversion issue, and he could assure them that no matter what version they had, it was the true Word of God.

He went on to tell them that all versions said the same

thing. This man was seriously misinformed. Below isour response: Dear Pastor, We have also have researched the Bible version issue, and thehistory of Bible versions—extensively—and have reached a verydifferent conclusion than you have.

We personally own over 50 different Bible versions, so we knowwhat we are talking about when we tell you they do not all say thesame thing… The source material (Greek and Hebrew texts) that the Old and NewTestaments of the King James Bible are translated from has been proven to be both reliable and fruit bearing. Not only do we see the fruit of it historically, and in our own livesas well, but also we believe God’s promise that his word will beavailable uncorrupted to every generation.

18



If we choose to believe current scholarship, we will be forced toconclude that we have not had the Word of God, in a reliable form,until the late 1800’s—when people got smarter and honed textualcriticism to a fine art. The Word of God itself tells us this is simplynot true…. Can we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we stillhave the uncorrupted Word of God available to ustoday?

Yes we can. The scriptures assure us this is so, and this

work will present, in an uncomplicated manner, asubject that has been unnecessarily complicated for far too long. We do not all have to be Bible scholars or havePhD’s in order to confidently choose the Bible versionthat is most reliable.

19



20



33Choosing A Bible

200+ Choices

Choosing a Bible can be a daunting task considering the plethora of choices available—Over 100 Englishversions of Bibles containing both Old and NewTestaments, and over 200 New Testament versions. Butthe choice is simplified completely when we realizethere are really only two choices. Two Families Of TextsAll Bibles are translated from only two families of texts(source material). These are the Greek Byzantine

21



Majority Texts or the Alexandrian Egyptian MinorityTexts.

What is the “Majority” Text?The manuscript of the Majority Text is also called the

Received Text or the Textus Receptus. It is called theMajority Text because there are so many texts still inexistence that are in agreement with it—over 5000extant (still existing) New Testament manuscripts are in

agreement with the text known commonly as theReceived Text. It is this text that underlies the New Testament of theKing James Version.

This text is known by several names:•

It is called the Majority Text, because the vastmajority of Greek texts (over 5000 in agreementwith one another) are of this type.

• It is called the Traditional Text, because it wasthe text normally accepted by believers fromapostolic times.

• It is called a Byzantine Text, because it was preserved in the Greek speaking (and writing)

Byzantine Empire.• It is called the Common Text, because it was

widely accepted by the priesthood of believers(which is composed of all believers as opposedto hierarchal religion).

• It is called the Received Text, because the vastmajority of orthodox believers and churchesreceived it.

22



What are the Minority Texts?Most modern English Bible versions (over two hundred)

are translated from Greek New Testament texts that are based on [primarily] two sources—Vaticanus andSinaiticus. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are part of a group of textscalled the Minority Texts. They are called MinorityTexts because the existing texts that are in agreementwith them are very few in number. These two texts are

not even in agreement with one another.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were used almost exclusivelywhen creating the Hort-Westcott Greek New Testament,which made its debut in 1881 (there will be more on thatin later chapters).

These texts are called:• Minority Texts, because the number of texts of

this type, which agree with one another, are sofew in number.

• Alexandrian Texts, because Alexandria, is wherethey were created and preserved.

• Egyptian Texts, because that is where Alexandriais located.

This book will take a close look at both families of texts(the Majority and Minority texts) and their respectiveclaims to reliability.

The reader will be shown that acceptance of either family of texts automatically excludes the other. It is thischoice, and this alone, which should determine which

Bible version any believer feels is reliable.

23



The choice really is not “which version?” There areliterally hundreds of versions to choose from. It is rather

“which family of texts is the most reliable? And whichfamily of texts was my version translated from?” Thatnarrows the choices down to only two.

24



44Who Can We Trust

These days, if we want to research a subject, we tend togo online, type in a few key words, and up comes ascreen with more information than we can investigate intwo lifetimes.

The Unreliability of the Received Text

It seems the main argument in favor of having an“anything goes” attitude concerning Bible versions is the(apparently) irrefutable unreliability of the ReceivedText. And the way most naysayers go about it, is to firstrefute Erasmus—the editor of the first Greek text to becalled “The Received Text.”

Much of the initial information that comes up in almost

any online search concerning Bible versions is blatantly biased and false. And the disdain with which the King

25



James Bible is held is very evident when readingthrough many online sources.

Disqualifying Erasmus: What the ExpertsSayGreat lengths are gone to in discrediting the sourcematerial from which the King James Bible was derivedas well as attempting to disqualify those involved withits translation—primarily Erasmus. A summary of what the inexperienced researcher islikely to find concerning The Received Text is asfollows: 1.) Erasmus, who presented us with the Textus Receptus,upon which most of the Bibles of the Protestant

Reformation were based, including the King JamesTranslation, was a Roman Catholic scholar.

2.) Erasmus was a humanist 3.) His text is a “late” Byzantine text.

4.) He prepared his Greek text carelessly—in haste.

5.) His Greek text abounded with errors.

6.) Erasmus’ motivations in preparing the Greek textwere questionable.

7.) Erasmus had very limited access to manuscripts.

8.) Erasmus based his text on only a few medieval textsof dubious veracity.

26



9.) Modern scholars are referred to often, as if modern

scholars are more reliable than scholars from earlier

time periods. 10.) Erasmus fabricated material for his text.

11.) Erasmus bowed to Trinitarian pressures byincluding the Comma Johanneun or the JohannineComma (1 John 5:7) in his work.

12.) The translators of the King James Version usedErasmus’ error riddled work in translating theAuthorized (King James) Version. After reading what experts have to say about the KingJames Bible and the source material it was translatedfrom, many lay down their faith, along with their Bibles,altogether. But the reader is implored not to be so hasty. The so-called “facts” that have just been presented areonly a mild sampling of the deliberately viciousmisinformation that is widely available to the modernresearcher.

If we are to take the word of modern scholarship on thesubject, we will have no choice but to believe theReceived Text is trash, and that both Erasmus and thetranslators of the King James Version were biased andirresponsible—with little to no regard for the truth.

27



Modern Scholarship Now, let’s take a closer look at what modern scholars are

saying about Erasmus and compare it with verifiable facts. It makes sense for those who want to discredit a text, todiscredit the person who wrote or edited the text to begin with. If their facts are correct, it is not only alogical but also a responsible thing to do. It is a veryvalid approach.

And that is the first thing the enemies of the ReceivedText attempt to do. They start out by trying to discreditand disqualify Erasmus, as the translator the ProtestantBible, by calling him both a Catholic and a Humanist.

In actuality, Erasmus was both, but, as we will show, hewas also neither.

Although he never officially left the Roman CatholicChurch, he remained a sharp critic of its practices untilhis death and even turned down a Cardinalship when itwas offered to him.

At best, Erasmus could be called a very bad Catholic.

The Vatican demonstrated agreement with this opinionof him when all of his works were placed on the prohibited index of books by Pope Paul 1V. Pius 1Vcontinued to ban (or view with caution) some of hisworks in a later index. As for his much-touted status of being a “humanist ,”

during the Renaissance, anyone who studied the classics,classical culture and education was considered a

28



humanist. Atheism was not a factor in Renaissancehumanism as it is today.

Although Erasmus could never, by any stretch of theimagination, be classified a fundamentalist Christian, thefact that he did have a rather orthodox faith is revealed by his very own words. These are the words he pennedin his Treatise on Preparation for Death: “We are assuredof victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over the worldand Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this life a

hundredfold and therefore life eternal. And for what reason? For thesake of our merit? No indeed, but through the grace of faith whichis in Christ Jesus . . . Christ is our justification . . . I believe thereare many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist,not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial, whorest in peace. While many who have had all the rites of the Churchand have been buried next to the altar, have gone to hell . . . Flee toHis wounds and you will be safe.”

What powerful words of faith! Need we look any further than Erasmus’ own words to prove that he was a true believer in the totality of Christ’s atonement with noneed of any “help” from Roman Catholic ritual?

Erasmus, with his own words, proves that he was neither Roman Catholic nor Secular Humanist in his beliefs. Hewas a genuine believer in Jesus Christ. He was a saved

man.

29



30



55Erasmus: Johnny Come Lately and A Careless Liar?

Erasmus’ text is classified as being a late Byzantine text.Which is exactly what it is. However, it is necessary tounderstand how the enemies of the Word of God use thisclassification against the Received Text.

Is Early Always Better Than Late?

In the world of biblical scholarship, early is generallyconsidered better than late. But what is not widelyunderstood by the inexperienced researcher is that it isalso acknowledged by experts that whether or not a textis classified as early or late is completely irrelevant as toits potential reliability. This is covered in detail in a later chapter.

The Received Text edited by Erasmus is a late Byzantinetext, but it must be remembered that he compiled his text

31



from much older sources. So the classification of “late”doesn’t automatically make it less reliable.

Was Erasmus’ text really preparedcarelessly and in haste?The accusation that Erasmus prepared his text in haste(meant to imply carelessness and skewed motivations) iscompletely unfounded. It is true he was working under adeadline from his publisher, but the fact that he waseven able to complete such a work within the space of one year is widely acknowledged as a testament to hisskill as a translator—Erasmus’ skillful expertise in bothGreek and Latin was widely acclaimed during hislifetime.

Riddled With Errors

Is it reasonable to imply a writer may be careless in hiswork simply because he has a deadline to meet? Doeshaving a deadline mean motivations for the work arewrong in the first place? Along with allegations of careless haste, innumerable references to errors aremade in regards to his first edition.

Here is what Erasmus had to say about the fuss being

made about all the so-called “errors” in his text: In a letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter Barbirius,Erasmus wrote: “I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to havediscovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner table rangwith the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not

have them.”

32



Why couldn’t he have them? Why couldn’t Erasmushave been presented with a list his blunders?

It must be clearly understood, at this point, thattypographical errors on the part of the newly invented printing press and errors of carelessness on Erasmus’ part are two completely different types of errors. Thefirst is understandable, correctable and would not set thetranslator up for ridicule. The second, however, placesresponsibility for any and all errors squarely on the head

of the translator.

Erasmus was one of the foremost scholars of his day.His abilities were respected world-wide, even so, toexpect perfection from a first edition produced on a tightdeadline was unrealistic, and to blame him for printing press issues was absolutely unfair.

Even Erasmus acknowledged his first edition was not perfect and spent the next twenty years editing his text.Also, the first edition of the Textus Receptus has never

been used as a basis for any Bible Translation, so toassociate any translation with it, as so many have tried todo with the King James Version, is very misleading. What about allegations that Erasmus simply fabricated part of his text because he didn’t have enough materialon hand to complete the work any other way?

Dr. Frederick Nolan was an eminent historian and Greek and Latin scholar of the 19th century. He researchedEgyptian chronology and spent twenty-eight yearstracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After

surveying Erasmus’ notes, Dr. Nolan recorded thefollowing: “With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that hewas acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having

33



distributed them into two principle classes, one of whichcorresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he wasaware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyedsome suspicion that its text was corrupted.” Can we really take seriously the claim that Erasmusmade his own interpretations and even fabricatedmaterial? Where is the proof that Erasmus acteddishonestly or fraudulently when preparing the firstedition of the Received Text? Was he inappropriatelyreferencing the Latin Vulgate in regards to the last sixverses of The Revelation?

No, Erasmus acted entirely appropriately, and within the bounds of acceptable scholarship in this. Although theLatin Vulgate is not an entirely reliable translation,neither is it entirely corrupt. Erasmus simply made a

judgment call—and remember, we are still referring tohis first edition (from which no Bible translation hasever been made). Erasmus did not fabricate anything.

It would seem, though, that those making allegationsthat he did...are guilty of the very thing they are

accusing Erasmus of.

34



66Trinitarian Pressures?

Does 1 John 5:7 Even Belong In The Bible?Debunking Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7 (alsoknown as the Johannine Comma or Comma Johanneun)in the third edition of the Textus Receptus is considereda trump card in the discrediting of both Erasmus and histext.

The treatment of the subject in this chapter will be brief and deal only with the most frequently made allegationthat the comma should not be included in scripture, because it is not included in ancient manuscripts. The passage in question says, “For there are three that bear recordin heaven, The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost: and thesethree are one.”

Below, is a false statement which shows up in almostany online search concerning 1 John 5:7: “… it is not

present in any manuscripts (Greek or otherwise) dating prior to the

35



16th century, and is not present in the passage as quoted by any of

the early Church fathers—even though they would have had plenty

of reason to quote it in the Trinitarian debates, had it really existed

back then….” (Wikipedia)

Now, anyone who has researched the subject at allknows this is simply not true. In this instance,“Wikipedia” is certainly guilty of presenting falseevidence as fact, but because they carry the title“encyclopedia,” there are those who automatically

assume they must be both correct and impartial, when infact they are neither.

Here is the official policy of the English Wikipedia,which is a reader edited online encyclopedia: “…Whenediting this page, please ensure that your revision reflectsconsensus… All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing contentmust be written from a neutral point of view, representing views

fairly and without bias.”Wikipedia’s neutral point of view consists of nothingless than the popular consensus. Facts are subordinate toconsensus—groupthink reigns supreme.

If, as Wikipedia and many other enemies of theReceived Text claim, the comma was not present in any

manuscript dating prior to the 16 th century…• How could it have been found in a Syriac

manuscript dated from around A.D. 170 (2nd

century), or in a Latin manuscript from around200 A.D. (3rd century)?

• How could it have been included in resolutionsmade at the Counsel of Carthage in A.D. 415 (5th

century)?

36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines



• How could Cassiodorus have quoted it in A.D.480 (5th century)?

• How could 400 Bishops have quoted, anddiscussed it at length, in their defense of thetrinity in A.D. 484 (5th century)?

Cyprian wrote about it around A.D. 250 (3rd century),“The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewiseit is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy

Spirit, ‘and these three are one.’” The truth is, that 1 John 5:7 has been found inmanuscripts and quotes dating from the 2nd century. Soany claims that it cannot be found before the 16th centuryare blatantly irresponsible and false.

When Erasmus was presented with proof that thecomma was not only seen in antiquity, but that it hadactually been widespread, he was convinced that it wasindeed part of the true Word of God and included it inthe third edition of his Textus Receptus.

The translators of the King James Version were beingneither irresponsible nor bowing to Trinitarian pressureswhen they included 1 John 5:7 in their translation. Theywere simply acknowledging the facts, and the commonconsensus of the priesthood of believers, that from theearliest days of the church, the words of the JohannineComma were indeed the Word of God and were rightlyattributed to the apostle John, who consistently defended —in all of his writings—the deity, and the rightful place

in the Godhead, of the Lord Jesus Christ.

37



38



77Apostolic Origins Of the Received Text

Quotes From Early SourcesThis chapter will be limited to quotes from very earlysources that verify the antiquity of the writings of theMajority text and brief explanations of them. It may prove to be more tedious reading than previous chapters, but please do not skip over this critical information.

Below is a quote claiming that the Majority Text cannottrace its origins any earlier than the 4th Century. Canthis possibly be true? If it is, then any claim to theapostolic origin of the Majority Text is refuted: “The text,found in the mass [Majority] of existing manuscripts, does not datefurther back than the middle of the fourth century...” Hort, quoted inDean Burgon, Traditional Text, p. 91.

The following quotes show that the text of, what is nowknown as, the Received Text (Textus Receptus/MajorityText) was the same text used by the earliest Christians

39



and accepted by them as coming from the apostlesthemselves.

Scholar, Jacob Geerlings, who has done extensive work on certain “family” branches of the Majority Text, hasstated that: “Its origins go back to the autographs [the originals]”(J. Geerlings, Family E and its Allies in Mark).

Edward Miller had this to say about the early churchFathers: “The testimony of any first-rate early church ‘father,’

where it can be had, must be held to outweigh the solitary testimonyof any single codex which can be named. For instance the origin

and history of Codices A, B, Aleph, and C [Alexandrinus,

Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi] is wholly unknown: their

dates and the places of their several production are matters of

conjecture only. But when we are listening to the articulateutterance of any of the ancient ‘fathers,’ we not only know withmore or less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us, but we even know the very diocese of Christendom in which we arestanding. To such a deponent we can assign a definite amount of credibility, whereas in the estimate of the former class of evidence[the Greek manuscripts] we have only inferences to guide us.Individually, therefore, a ‘father’s’ evidence where it can becertainly obtained—caeterius paribus [Latin: other things beingequal] is considerably greater than that of any single known codex.”Edward Miller, quoted in Dean Burgon, Traditional Text, 57.

When Did the Church Fathers Live?With the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) acting as their chronological watershed, church historians willgenerally arrange the ‘fathers’ by the era in which theylived

• Apostolic (A.D. 75-150)• Ante-Nicene (A.D. 150-325)•

Post-Nicene (A.D. 325-500)The majority of the “fathers,” including the earliest of

them, quoted from the Majority Text .

40



The writings of just five early writers (Tertullian,Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and Clement of

Alexandria) have provided us with 30,147 Scripturecitations— and the great majority of their quotations

agree with the Majority Text .

As late as the year A.D. 208, Tertullian, in his defensivework, entitled “On Persecution against Heretics,”rebuked the skeptics of his age with the challenge thatthe authentic writings of the apostles were still

possessed by Christians in his day: “Come now, you whowould indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over [to] the apostolic churches, inwhich the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering thevoice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia isvery near you, [in which] you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have theThessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, fromwhich there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood!” Tertullian,quoted in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 260.

Papyri, which are un-disputably the earliest manuscriptsources available, testify to the ancient origins of the

Majority Text: “Byzantine readings which most critics haveregarded as late, have now been proved by Papyrus Bodmer II to beearly readings.” Hills, quoted in Dean Burgon, The Last TwelveVerses of Mark, p. 54.

“Papyrus 66 supports the reading of the Majority Text.” Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 2, p. 381.

“Some of the New Testament papyri that have been discoveredshow remarkable similarity with later manuscripts. In fact, severalof the extant early papyri are related to many later manuscripts

41



(fourth century and beyond) or at least share a common ancestor .”Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of

the Bible, p. 11.

The earliest Syrian Translation of the scriptures was thePeshitta—translated in A.D. 145. It closely agrees withthe Majority Text. Modern liberal scholars upped the

translation date of the Peshitta to A.D. 415, but the

antiquity of this early translation of the scriptures is

widely acknowledged.

Concerning the Italia, the Old Latin Translation (not to be confused with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate), the first of these was made no later than A.D. 157, about 60 yearsafter the last book of the Bible was finished. It is calledthe Old Latin Translation or Italia. This translation wasmade for the young churches established in the ItalianAlps (the far northern part of Italy). It agrees closely

with the Majority Text: “The old Italic version into the rudeLow Latin of the second century held its own as long as Latincontinued to be the language of the people. The critical version of Jerome [the Vulgate] never displaced it, and only replaced it whenthe Latin ceased to be a living language, but became the language of the learned.” Fulton, The Forum, June 1887; quoted in Wilkinson,Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, pp. 27-28.

“The old Latin versions were used longest by the Eastern Christianswho would not bow to the authority of Rome, e.g., the Donatists;the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent; the Albigenses; etc.”Jacobus, Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, p. 200. The Gothic Translation was the first translation into a purely European language. It was prepared in A.D. 330 by Ulfilas, an earnest soul-winning evangelist. This

translation was prepared about 10 years before theSinaiticus and Vaticanus, and it agrees closely with theMajority Text: “The type of text represented in it is for the most

42



part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.”Frederick G. Kenyon, Critical Text of the New Testament, 1912

edition.

Although it was translated before the Minority/EgyptianTexts were copied, Ulfilas’ version contains readingsthat Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (and modern versionstranslated from them) omit, i.e., “For Thine is the kingdom,and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”

43



44



88Why The Need For Another Version?

The average Christian believes that the first Bibletranslated into modern English (the Revised StandardVersion) came into being because of the outdated,

difficult to understand, archaic English of the KingJames Version. Christians generally assume the Revised Standard

Version, and subsequent versions, only address modernlanguage –Vs- archaic language issues. It is easy to believe the new version initially came about as a resultof popular demand for a Bible that was easier tounderstand than the one that had served the Englishspeaking population so well for almost 300 years. It almost makes sense. But was that really the case?

Were people really clamoring for a new and better translation?

45



The next section of this book will deal with how andwhy the first revision of the Holy Scriptures took place.

What will be revealed in the next few chapters is crucial,verifiable information. The defender of the MajorityText will be required to have knowledge of these things. We have shown the trustworthiness of the man whoedited the very first “Received Text.” And there hasnever been any significant doubt cast on the persons or motives of any of the translators of the King James

Version. King James himself played no active part in thetranslation past lifting the death penalty for theundertaking and setting some very reasonable guidelinesfor the translators to follow—one of which was: “ No

Footnotes.”

The Best Keeps Getting Bester Anyone who loves and honors the Written Word of Goddeserves and needs to understand the answers to thefollowing questions:

• What were the beliefs of those who promotedand edited the Egyptian/Minority texts?

• How were these flawed codices successfullyedited into a text from which hundreds of versions have sprung?

• If every new version translated from them wasalways the best, most accurate ever (almost all of them make that claim), why the need for somany new ones?

46



How It All BeganWe have already shown that the New Testament of the

King James Version (KJV) is translated from completelydifferent source material than virtually every other modern English version.

It is a word for word translation taken from the ReceivedText (Textus Receptus/Majority Text) that was usedextensively by the early church.

1881: The Year We Finally Got The RealWord of God Almost all modern English translations of the NewTestament scriptures originated from either the Hort-Westcott Greek New Testament which was presented tothe English Speaking world in 1881 or from the United

Bible Society and Nestle-Aland text (the two texts arevirtually identical to Hort and Westcott’s text). This is how it all began; in the late 1800’s twoAnglican clergymen set out to give everyone a greater understanding of the ancient manuscripts.

They did this by first rejecting all previous scholarship.

All previous scholarship—now do we honestly believethat from the days of Christ until the late 1800’s therewas no reliable translation of the scriptures available?Because that is exactly what Professor Fenton JohnAnthony Hort and Bishop Brook Foss Wescott weresaying when they rejected all previous scholarship. The scriptures tell us that God honors his Word abovehis name, and that his word endures to all (that means

47



each and every…) generations. If Hort and Westcottwere correct in rejecting all previous scholarship, then

God is a liar.

They attempted to, and succeeded to a great degree,discredit the Received Text altogether by composing aGreek New Testament edited entirely from theEgyptian/Minority Texts. So we see they not onlyrejected all previous scholarship up to that point, butalso the very source material that from the first century

up until then had been considered, by every reputablescholar, sacred, inspired and reliable. Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort rejected, entirely,the Received Text that had been used, trusted, and bornincredible fruit and chose instead for their translation,almost exclusively, two very poor manuscripts(Mss.) “Aleph” (Sinai) and “B” (Vatican).

Not only do the two Mss. they chose differ significantly one from the other, but also from 99 outof 100 other, more reliable, manuscripts! So, the question is, why did they reject all previousscholarship as well as all previous source material infavor of two codices that most scholars agreed, at that point, were quite inferior?

Reader, I beg you to understand, we are not talkingabout only some of the scholarship up to that point, butevery single bit of it . It helps to know something about the people who were

undertaking this revolutionary project. Bishop Wescottwas a publicly professed disbeliever in the physicalresurrection of Jesus Christ. In other words, he was not

48



even a saved man. God only saves those who call onhis name through faith in his risen son (Romans 10:9-10,13).

Since he rejected the physical resurrection of Christ, itshould come as no surprise that his translation work and choice of source material would reflect that slant. The Hort-Westcott Greek Text does not stop withdiscrediting the physical resurrection of Christ. WhenWestcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham

University Journal welcomed him with the praise thathe was, “Free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration.” Translated into plain English, that meansthat Westcott did not even believe the Bible was theinspired word of God. Hort called the substitutionary,atoning death of Christ, “immoral.”

The text of Westcott and Hort (and the translations based on it) refutes and/or dilutes every major doctrineof Christianity. When 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) iscompared with most modern translations, the flawedtheology of Bishop Westcott is clear—as well as thecorrupted nature of the Egyptian/Minority Texts. In changing the more specific “God ” in this verse tothe generic “he,” the message of one of the most profound statements of the Deity of Jesus Christ foundin the New Testament is completely corrupted.

The Received Text clearly says God (in 1 Timothy3:16). And this reading enjoys the agreement of

around 4000 texts —either in mss evidence, versions or writings of the early Church fathers. That is a great

deal of forensic evidence (evidence that is acceptablein a court of law) and constitutes more than enough

49



witnesses to the integrity of the texts chosen by thetranslators of the King James Bible.

The Received Text, which was used extensively by theearly church, is very specific in the case of 1 Timothy3:16, that God was manifest in the flesh. The Hort-Westcott Greek, on the other hand, clouds the issue. The sad truth is that most modern English translationsof the Bible are translated from either the Hort-

Westcott Greek or from an “eclectic text” (Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society’s) that is virtuallyidentical to the Hort-Westcott text. These versions either subtly attack all of the major doctrines of Christianity or they boldly attack them.And in hundreds of ways dilute the doctrines given tous by God that pertain to life and Godliness. Those who love the Hort-Westcott Greek (which,among others, the New Testaments of the AmplifiedBible and Watchtower’s New World Translation are based entirely on) work tirelessly, and often,successfully, to discredit the King James Version andconvince many who are seeking the truth into believingthat the modern translations derived from the corrupttexts of Sinai and Vatican are the most accurate.

This is simply not true. It is a blatant lie that the TextusReceptus is full of errors. It is not.

It is a blatant lie that King James insisted on his particular doctrinal beliefs being brought forth in the

translation that bears his name. He did not.

50



The KJV is one of the very few word for wordtranslations of the Holy Scriptures we have, and every

word in it can be looked up in the original **Strong’sExhaustive Concordance Bible Dictionary.

**When purchasing a “Strong’s” make certain you purchase theOriginal Strong’s —not the New Improved or The Strongest

Strong’s—with the “updated” Greek and Hebrew! These newStrong’s are full of the classical Greek contained in the corruptedEgyptian/Minority Texts. The Majority/Received Text is written inKoine Greek—the everyday Greek spoken by the common people

—not the classical Greek used in the writings of the philosophers. The Berry Interlinear contains a complete copy of the ReceivedText along with the literal English translation. And the originalStrong’s contains the Koine Greek (every day Greek) of theReceived Text for the New Testament as well as the Ben ChayyimMasoretic Text for the Old Testament. Most modern Bibleversions also use a different Hebrew text from the one used intranslating the King James Version.

51



52



99The Minority Texts

and the Hort-Westcott Theory

In 1881, a text claiming to be holy scripture, but ableto claim only 1% agreement among the comparativelyfew extant texts of its type, supplanted the Majority Textthat enjoys over 90% agreement among over 5000

extant texts of its type!

Although it is difficult to understand how such a thingcould happen, it did —and the travesty took place as aresult of the **Hort-Westcott theory of textual criticism

being widely accepted among the biblical scholars of that time.

**Remember, Bishop Westcott was not even a believer in the

physical resurrection of our Lord—which resurrection the eternallife of every Christian is completely dependent upon.

53



What Is the Hort-Westcott Theory?Westcott and Hort conjectured that, of all the extant

manuscripts available, only two were worth consideringas a primary basis for their text: the Sinaiticus (Aleph)and the Vaticanus (B). They said these were older andtherefore more reliable than any of the others. In fact,the foundation of their work was based on theassumption that these two Codices were without error .Because of that assumption, they reasoned all variationsincluding those contained in the 5,000+ manuscripts of

the Majority Text must be copyist errors of one kind or another.

In addition to this, their theory dictates that when editingany text containing the Word of God, the texts were to be considered **no different from any other ancient(ordinary) book.

**Westcott was free from the idea that the scriptures were inspired by God.

The History of the CodicesAlthough the history of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (eachcalled a codex) is a mystery, they are thought by experts

to have been written in the 4th

Century (A.D. 340). It is believed the codices were commissioned [byConstantine I] as part of an order for fifty copies. It isalso believed they were transcribed in Alexandria,Egypt: “Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsomecopies, amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts . .B and Aleph were to be actually found.” Burgon, Traditional Text, p. 163.

Tischendorf also believed that this was how theSinaiticus originated: “Is it possible that this Bible, Aleph,

54



could be one of the 50 copies which Emperor Constantine orderedEusebius to place in Constantinople, his new capital.” Tischendorf,

quoted in Beale, Pictoral History, p. 54.

According to the Oxford Dictionary: “Most scholars believethat, like the Vaticanus, it [the Sinaiticus] was written in Alexandria,Egypt. . . The New Testament text of the codex is closely allied tothat of the Vaticanus, together with which it is the chief witness tothe ‘Neutral Text.” Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 310.

Neither Vaticanus nor Siniaticus (which form the basisfor the New Testaments of virtually all moderntranslations) is an original or even a copy of an original.

It is accepted that both are recencions. Here is whatK.W. Clark had to say about them: “All are found on thesame Egyptian recension.” K.W. Clark, Today’s Problems with the

Critical Text of the New Testament , published in Transitions in

Biblical Scholarship, ed. by J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, p. 166.

Exactly what is a “recension?”

It is a revision —no more no less.

So the 200+ Bible Translations we have today arenothing more than modern English versions which have

been translated from Hort-Westcott’s version…whichwas translated from the Egyptian/Alexandrian scholars’revision of…yet another (unknown) version or text!

The Quality of the CodicesThe quality of the Codex Sinaiticus was denounced byDr. Scrivner: “It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex

Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to anextent unparalleled, but rather unusual in documents of first rateimportance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the state

55



of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded asvery rough.’” Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 267.

Burgon had this to say about the impure condition of both Codices: “On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words aredropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even wholesentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun andimmediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clauseis omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.”Dean Burgon, Causes and Corruption of the Traditional Text , p.

128.

“Between the first two [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] there subsists anamount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have

been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt

original . Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by thesame scribe. Yet they vary repeatedly from one another on every page; as well as differing widely from the commonly Received[Majority] Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On

being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found toomit at least 2,877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: totranspose, 2,098: to modify, 1,132 (in all 7,578)—the correspondingfigures for being severally 3,455, 839, 1,114, 2,299, 1,265 (in all8,972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions,substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means thesame in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses inwhich these two manuscripts differ the one from the other than twoconsecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” Burgon, Revision

Revised , p. 12.

Scrivner concurred: “That no small proportion of these aremere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstancethat this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twiceover .” Philip Scrivener, Plain Introduction, Vol. 1, p. 120.

“The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not aquestion of opinion but of fact. . . In the Gospels…Codex B

[Vaticanus] leaves out words or clauses…it bears traces of carelesstranscription on every page.” Burgon, quoted in Scrivener, Vol. 1, p. 120.

56



It is no wonder reputable scholars have consistently

questioned the fitness and integrity of Vaticanus andSinaiticus as well as the men who promoted them.

4th century Alexandria Egypt was noted for its mixtureof pagan philoshophy and Christianity. The Codices inquestion (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) have also beenlinked with the notable Christian apostate, Origen: “Yet Iventure also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria

that the text in question was fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so are the following: (1) There is a marked resemblance between the peculiar readings of Vaticanus / Sinaiticus and the twoEgyptian versions—the Bohairic or Version of Lower Egyptespecially. (2) No one can fail to have been struck by the evidentsympathy between Origen,—who at all events had passed morethan half his life at Alexandria...” Burgon, Traditional Text , pp.234-235.

Another link between the Codices and Origen can befound through Jerome and his Vulgate. Fredrick Nolansaw the connection: “The striking coincidence of the Greek of the Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate leads to theestablishment of the same conclusion. This version received thecorrections of St. Jerome during his abode in Palestine; it is thusonly probable that the Greek copies, after which he modeled it,were those, which far from being current in Palestine, were used inthe monastery into which he had retired: but these he assures uswere of the edition of Eusebius. For this edition he had imbibed anearly partiality, through Gregory of Nazianzum, who first put theScriptures into his hands, who had been educated at Caesarea inPalestine.” Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the

Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament , pp. 83-84.

Jerome admitted his familiarity with the manuscripts of Pamphilus and Origen. He said he relied on these

documents as his unquestioned model when translatingthe Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate from a Greek

57



Manuscript—see Scrivener, Plain Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 226).

The Codex Sinaiticus is riddled with corrections, and its

early dating has been called into question with verygood reason: “Since this document was first inscribed, it has been made the subject of no less than ten different attempts of revision and correction [by later scribes]. The number of theseattempts is witnessed by the different chirographies [handwritingstyles] of the revisers, and the centuries in which they wererespectively made can be approximated by the character of the

different handwritings by which the several sets of corrections werecarried out…Many of these corrections were contemporaneous withthe first writer [copyist], but far the greater part belonging to the 6thor 7th century.” Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 267.

Yet in spite of evidence to the contrary, Westcott andHort maintained that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were“ pure texts,” and that all others were partly corrupt—

especially the ones used in the preparation of the KingJames Bible.

For this they have, rightly, been called unfit for the work of translating the Word of God: “Behold then the provisionwhich the Author of Scripture has made for the effectualconservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word!Upwards of 1,800 years have run their course since the Holy Ghost, by His servant Paul, rehearsed ‘the Mystery of Godliness,’ declaringthis to be the great foundation fact, namely, that ‘God was manifestin the flesh.’ And lo! Out of 254 copies of St. Paul’s Epistles, no

less than 252 are discovered to have preserved that expression. Thecopies whereof we speak were procured in every part of Christendom, being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still.They have since found their way, without design or contrivance,into the libraries of every country in Europe, where they are jealously guarded…We submit, as a proper and just conclusion

from these facts, that men who, in view of the evidence before them,would cast out of the Scripture at this vital point, the word ‘God’

and replace it by ‘he who’ have thereby demonstrated their

58



unfitness for the work of revising the Greek text of the New

Testament .” Burgon, quoted in Fuller, True or False? p. 98.

How has it happened that corrupt Codices, championed by unregenerate men, have formed the basis for virtuallyall 20th century Bible translations?

The Preface of the New King James Version has this tosay about the Egyptian/Minority Texts that were usedalmost exclusively by Hort and Westcott in editing their

Greek text: “Since the 1880’s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon relatively few manuscriptsdiscovered chiefly in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries.Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, CodexVaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. TheGreek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri(our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text.However, some scholars have ground for doubting the faithfulnessof Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one

another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.

Frederic Kenyon, the late Director of the BritishMuseum and author of very widely used textbooks ontextual criticism, wrote this about the Minority Text:

• “[This New Minority-type Greek text] predominantlyused…Aleph and B [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] typereadings…[The changes] amount to an extensive

modification of the text. It has been the dominating influence in all modern critical editions... It is clear that...deliberate alteration…has been at work on a large scale inone text or the other ...” Frederick Kenyon, Text of the

Greek New Testament , pp. 197-204, 224, 231.

Wilber Pickering, author and Dallas Seminary Alumnussays this about the Minority Text: “The minority manuscriptsdisagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with themajority. We are not judging between two text forms, onerepresenting 90% of the manuscripts and the other 10%. Rather wehave to judge between 90% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the

59



Majority Text with P75 and B text form for example). Or to take aspecific case, in 1 Timothy 3:16, over 300 Greek manuscripts read

‘God’ [KJV]… So we have to judge between 97% and 2%…”

“It really does seem that those scholars who reject the MajorityText are faced with a serious problem… They are remnantsreflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence on suchaberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament… I submit that due process requires us to

receive as original that form of the text which is supported by the

majority of witnesses. To reject their testimony in favour of our ownimagination as to what a reading ought to be is manifestlyuntenable.” Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament

Text , pp. 114-120, 25, 149, 150, 237.

Even Hort admitted the Alexandrian manuscripts werenot very good. In a letter to Westcott, he wrote:“Inaccuracy may in certain men or at certain periods run into alaxity which is careless about words though supposing itself faithful

to sense, and which draws no sharp line between transcribing andediting, i.e. mending or completing. This last characteristic

naturally belongs to the early period.” A.F. Hort, Life and Letters

of F.J.A. Hort , Vol. 2., p. 228.

Dr. Edward Hills, author and graduate of Yale andWestminister Theological Seminary, with a Th.M. fromColumbia Seminary and a Th.D. from Harvard says this:“But this suggestion leads to conclusions which are extremely bizarre and inconsistent. It would have us believe that during the

manuscript period orthodox Christians corrupted the NewTestament text, that the text used by the Protestant Reformers was

the worst of all, and that the true text was not restored until the

nineteenth century, when Tregelles brought it forth out of the Pope’s

library, when Tischendorf rescued it from a wastebasket on Mt.

Sinai, and when Westcott and Hort were providentially guided to

construct a theory of it which ignores God’s special providence and

treats the text of the New Testament like the text of any other

ancient book ...” Edward F. Hills, The King James Version

Defended , pp. 110-111.

60



In the following statement, Wilber Pickering questionshow these flawed texts have been so widely accepted:

“The distressing realization is forced upon us that the ‘progress’ of the past hundred years has been precisely in—the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are found to differ from

the Original in some six thousand places, many of them being

serious differences…[They] are several times farther removed fromthe originals than are the A.V. and TR [King James Version and itsfoundation, the Greek Textus Receptus]. How could such a

calamity have come upon us? …Much of the work that has beendone is flawed.” Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text ,

pp. 149-150, 237.

Dean John Burgon, the scholar who collated the earliest New Testament documents—including codices, cursiveManuscripts, papyri, lectionaries, quotations by early"fathers" (87,000 in all)—wrote this about the changes being made in Greek texts and Bible translations:“Ordinary readers…will of course assume that the changes result

from the reviser’s skill in translating—advances which have beenmade in the study of Greek. It was found that they had erredthrough defective scholarship to an extent and with a frequency,which to me is simply inexplicable… Anything more unscientific…can scarcely be conceived, but it has prevailed for fifty years. Weregret to discover that… their work is disfigured throughout by

changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an

imperfect acquaintance with the Greek language.” Burgon, The

Revision Revised , pp. 54, xi, 270, 277.

The modern speech revisionists have been declared to befraudulent, unscholarly and unscientific in their methods: “Monstrously unscientific, if not dangerouslyobscurantist. The average well-taught Bible-believing Christian hasoften heard the error that the King James Version is corrected on the basis of better manuscripts or older authorities.” Hodges, quoted inPickering, Identity of the New Testament Text , p. 160.

“Lacking any kind of technical training in this area, the average believer probably has accepted such explanations from individuals

61



he regards as qualified to give them.” Hodges, quoted in D.O.Fuller, Which Bible? p. 25.

Why does there seem to be so little concern displayed bythe average Christian today about something that mattersso much? Hort claimed that that the two manuscripts he chose for his revision were “ pure” and that all others thatdisagreed with them were full of copyist errors. In light

of the tremendous weight of evidence to the contrary,how could he even have been taken seriously, much less been such a prevailing force in the rejection of theMajority Text unless it was, somehow, a pre-curser of the great delusion which the Bible says will sweep theworld in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:11)?

This is what Mauro had to say: “Here is a document which

the [1870-1881] revisers have esteemed (and that solely because of its antiquity [said to be in the 4th century]) to be so pure that itshould be taken as a standard whereby all other copies of theScriptures are to be tested and corrected . Such is the estimate of certain scholars of the 19th century…But it bears upon its face the proof that those in whose possession it had been, from the very first,and for some hundreds of years thereafter, esteemed it to be soimpure [so full of copyist errors] as to require correction in every

part…Considering the great value to its owner of such a manuscript

(since it is on vellum of the finest quality) and that he would bemost reluctant to consent to alterations in it except the need wasclearly apparent, it is plain that this much admired codex bears uponits face the most incontestable proof of its defective character…But,more than that, Dr. Scrivener tells us that the evident purpose of thethorough-going revision which he places in the 6th or 7th centurywas to make the manuscript conform to manuscripts in vogue at thattime which were ‘far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.’”Mauro, quoted in D.O. Fuller, True or False? p. 75.

Modern translators have tried to distance themselvesfrom the Hort-Westcott Greek Text. They tend to favor

62



the Nestle-Aland Greek text or the United BibleSociety’s—both of which favor the same Egyptian/

Minority recensions and are virtually identical (85%) toWestcott and Hort’s.

In summary, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not as old asthe Majority Text. The Majority Text has been found indiverse geographical locations worldwide, throughoutmany time periods, and can also be traced to Apostolic

origins, while the Codices Aleph and “B” (designated

“Neutral [pure] Texts” by Hort and Westcott) can only be traced to one time period and one location—mid-4thcentury Egypt .

Woe to the rebellious children saith the Lord…that walk to go down

to Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth….

63



64



1010Choose You This Day....

•

What the Bible version debate is really all abouthas once again been brought to the forefront, andthe reader has been challenged to understandwhy it really does matter which Bible version weread.

• Basic information concerning the history of themost important documents anyone can ever

possess has been presented.

• The reader has been clearly shown that a choicemust be made, and the decision has beensimplified by narrowing the choices fromliterally hundreds down to just two.

• The claims of those who oppose the Word of God by slandering those involved with the

65



translation of the King James Version have beendebunked as being vindictively false.

• The claims of those who slander the integrityof the Received Text itself have been proven tohold no water.

• The Apostolic origin of the Received Text has been traced and proven.

• The reasons given for the need for a newtranslation in the 1880’s have been explored andfound wanting.

• The character of those who rejected all previousscholarship and texts, in spite of overwhelmingevidence that the choice was not based on soundscholarship, has been examined and foundwanting.

• The very revisions they chose upon which to base their revision have been examined andfound to be inferior and corrupt.

To the heart that loves the truth, the evidence presentedin this book is more than enough in order to make aninformed decision and a righteous choice. To the heartthat does not love the truth, no amount of evidence willever be enough.

He that has ears, let him hear ….

66



Testimony Of The Author

“I was finished with God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell,

Christianity and anything that had to do with it. God

truly found me at a time when I was not looking for

him...”

I was only six years old the day I decided I

wanted to belong to Jesus Christ. I went homefeeling a sense of euphoric joy at what hadhappened that morning. A sense of joy that wasnot to last...

I don’t remember the sermon topic thatday. Theology was not a concern at thetime. I only knew that when the Pastor

gave the invitation to “join the church,”I wanted to. And as he counseled withme and prayed with me, my six-year-oldfaith connected with God through belief in his risen son, and I knew thatsomething special had happened to me.

I would like to say that I was faithful to

God after that, but I wasn’t always.

My Mother made sure we were atChurch almost every Sunday, and I saidmy prayers at night sometimes, but Inever made Jesus a real part of my life.I had no idea how to do that.

67



As an adolescent, I went my own wayand stopped going to Church

altogether.

A fear of dying and going to helldescended on me and stayed there forthe next eighteen years. The only thingI knew about being a Christian was thatyou were supposed to go to Church andlive a certain way, and I didn’t want to

do that. To be perfectly honest, churchbored me.

As a young adult, I began living alifestyle that I could not reconcile withmy conscience and with what I hadbeen taught in Church and in Sunday

School throughout my childhood.

In 1979 I couldn’t bear the guilt andfear any longer, and I decided I didn’twant to believe in hell anymore.

The only logical way that I couldaccomplish that goal…was to stop

believing in God.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but I wasvery serious about it. I reasoned withmyself that if the scriptures were trueand there was a God, then there surelywas a hell, and in spite of myprofession of faith at age six, I was

certain I was going there.

68



I could not think of a single reason whyI should be granted eternal life when I

died. I did not understand that it wasfaith in what Christ did and not my owngood works that saved me.

I’ll never forget the first time Iannounced to another person that I didnot think I believed in God. The wordsshocked us both. But lightning didn’t

strike, and I was encouraged to pursuemy goal of becoming an atheist..

Between 1979 and 1981 I worked veryhard at it. Sometimes, during the daywith all its distractions, I was somewhatsuccessful. But at night, when the

silence descended, I could not squelchthe conviction of the Holy Spirit thatthe scriptures were true and God wasreal.

In 1981 I was invited to go to churchwith some friends and family, and Iwent. I didn’t go to worship God that

Sunday morning. My goal was todiscount everything the preacher saidand prove that Christianity was a mythand a crutch for weak-minded people tolean on.

I successfully (to my own satisfaction)shredded everything the preacher said

that morning. I sat through the songs,prayers, preaching and alter callcompletely untouched emotionally or

69



spiritually. I walked out of churchunchanged and very satisfied with

myself.

I went back again the next week. I knewthat if I could sit through one moresermon and alter call unmoved, asbefore, that I would be free foreverfrom this Christianity thing thattormented me so.

I planned on walking away from Godthat morning and never looking back.

I sat down on the very back pew; theone closest to the exit, and waited forthe service to begin. The congregation

stood up, said a few prayers, and sanga few hymns, then sat down.

I felt nothing—so far so good.

Then the preacher (who did not knowme) raised his arm and pointed hisfinger directly at me and thundered the

first words of his sermon…

“ And God gave them up!”

When he uttered the last word of thatsentence, something seemed to comeout of the end of his finger and slamstraight into my heart. In that moment

all my atheistic defenses wereshattered, and I became acutely aware

70



of the existence of my God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Immediately I cried out to him in myheart. I told him that I knew he wasreal, and I was sorry for ever denyinghim. I don’t remember anything elsethe preacher said that morning, but Iwas the first one to reach the alterwhen he finished preaching.

I picked up my Bible that veryafternoon and began reading the NewTestament book of Matthew. I havebeen reading my Bible daily for overtwenty-five years now. I read my Biblestraight through, over and over, always

picking up today where I left off yesterday. It has changed my life.

It took me almost twenty years to pick up where I left off when I was six, but Iknow that God allowed a little child tocome to him, and then held on to her and mercifully revealed his awesome

presence, even as she tried with all hermight to deny him.

Jocelyn Andersen

125 years of bible version debate: why?

Documents